A reduction in the price of firewood and coal would result in more households using these for heating purposes and to a higher extent, a consequence of which would be a significant increase in air pollution. This would mean that the burden imposed on society by the energy price cut would be much bigger than the household savings resulting from the price reduction. The fact that there are no governmental regulations regarding the quality of solid fuels makes the situation even worse.

The burning of fossil fuels (coal, oil, natural gas) causes climate change and air pollution. There are hardly any scientific literature or European Union documents which doubt this correlation. It seems, however, that there’s a need to deal with another correlation, since the new governmental initiative to reduce energy prices sheds light on the fact that not everyone in Hungary can grasp the fundamental economic principle which states that lower prices lead to a higher demand. This correlation is what basically makes the Clean Air Action Group consider the reduction of energy prices a misguided move, and urge the introduction of energy taxes (the latter, of course, with financial compensation for the individuals in need).

Unfortunately, the Hungarian government have come up with a new idea for energy price cut: they ‘would ease the burdens of households by reducing the price of firewood and coal’. The Hungarian Energy and Public Utility Regulatory Authority has been commissioned to prepare the framework for the price reduction of firewood and coal sold to households. According to the government, this would be reached by reducing the ‘excessive profits’ of companies with foreign ownership. The Clean Air Action Group doubts that anyone in these markets, where the competition is much more open than in the electricity, natural gas or district-heating markets, would have excessive profits, but even if this was the case, an official price cut is not the remedy to the problem.

In case the idea is realised, the sellers of quality coal are highly likely to withdraw from the market, and almost exclusively it will be the lignite, the cheapest type of coal, which will be used in the stoves. However, this coal type is of the worst quality and lowest caloric value, which means that in order to attain the same heat, a higher amount of it should be burnt than of black coal or brown coal. There will be more ash and slag. The burning of lignite releases significantly more fume, and pollutes the air much more than other coals. It will mainly result in the increase of extremely harmful particle pollution (PM10 and PM2.5), and the damage of heating equipment and chimneys by the sulphur dioxide released. The Clean Air Action Group has already proposed that, similar to German practice, the government should ban the burning of lignite; this, however, has not happened to date.

In the case of firewood, it is the high moisture content which makes wood-burning really hazardous. Wood with high moisture content burns improperly, and the flue-gas emitted contains a range of extremely toxic materials. The Clean Air Action Group has urged several times that the maximum allowed moisture content of firewood be determined by law, however, this proposal has also been ignored by the government – even if this could reduce not only air pollution but also energy costs for the consumers, as nowadays it is a common practice for firewood sellers to soak the firewood so as to make it heavier.

Therefore, even if reducing the price of firewood, coal and lignite eases the financial burden on the poor in the short run, a high price will be paid for it in terms of human health. Research predicts that in the long run the resulting health care expenditure and loss of earnings caused by illness and deaths will amount to a loss for society much higher than the household savings due to the energy price cuts.